Legality of stopping a 'perceived' dog attack

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Atticus

Member.
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,792
Location
Ohio
The recent dog attack story (and resulting threads) motivated me to post this. I'm looking for opinions and/or legal advice about using lethal force against other people's dogs.

I was walking with my 9 year old twins a few weeks ago when two large dogs ran at us at full speed with teeth bared. They stopped about 2 feet away because of an invisible fence. I was totally unaware of the fence, and I was a milli-second away from slashing the throat of the lead dog ( I wasn't carrrying a gun that day - just a big folder). I'm not sure what the law would say about that....but I didn't care at the time. I stood there for a few minutes waiting for the owners to come out of the house, but they didn't. Could be because I had an 8" knife in my hand and a face as red as the devil...ya think? Afterward, I really began to wonder what I would have done if I had been armed with a pistol. I was convinced they were going to attack; I would have drawn if I had been carrying; and I would have likely fired when they got as close as they did. Would I have been justified in your opinon?

On the bright side- I found out just how fast I could fully deploy my knife under stress...about 1.5 seconds I'd guess lol.
 
You're with two kids and two dogs coming at you in attack mode? Hell yes you would have been justified! The only improper course of action in such a situation would be to do nothing. Glad everything worked out OK for you.
 
Was the yard bordered by little yellow flags 4" apart? If not then you had no idea an invisible fence was there (and even if it was, you had no idea that the dogs knew what they meant yet). You probably would have had to wait until the dogs left "their" yard though to make it legal.

It also would probably depend on the location of the dogs. In a suburban subdivision setting where you were walking on the edge of the dog's property, you would have to wait longer to see if the dogs left their property/obvious enclosure. With my house you have to come up a 100 yard driveway & the dogs are behind a 4' fence in the backyard. If you do come up the driveway you will more than likely be greeted by them leaning over the fence barking for all they are worth (the fact that they are so stupid that they think that everyone who comes up the driveway is the UPS guy (who gives them Milk Bones whenever he stops by) is unknown to you at this point). For you to shoot them behind the visible fence might get return fire from me when I came out to see what the noise was about. At the very least you will be talking to the local police. However I have the buffer of time & distance to make sure that your actions were deliberate.

In the end it boils down to how threatened you feel & can you justify that level of threat with every other variable thrown in (which we/the jury gets to decide at leisure & not in an instant while deciding to defend our family or possibly hesitate a little too long). Not an easy choice either way.
 
they came at you in a violent manner you would have been plenty justified and I doubt it matters if they were on their own property or not. If you were across the street maybe but if you are on a sidewalk or the side of the street boardering their property it shouldn't so long as it is a reasonable distence from you before responding. You had no way of knowing if there was an invisible fence and even if you had I've seen plenty of dogs run right through them. They were agravated as hell but by no means confined.
 
State laws vary widely in the circumstances where they permit lethal force against dogs. In Ohio, you're in good shape if you shoot a threatening dog on your own property or on neutral territory.

Shooting a dog that hasn't left the owner's property is more complicated and will depend on the jury's interpretation of multiple factors. In the situation you describe, I'd bet on an acquittal in the criminal trial and a large monetary award in the civil trial that is sure to follow.

Property-line confrontations are legal tangles. In a sense, any property owner should have the right to agressively defend his property all the way up to the property line. Depending on the details of the castle doctrine in a particular state, the individual on his own property might have no duty to retreat whereas the individual not on his own property may well have a duty to retreat.

A final point to consider before shooting a dog on the owner's property is that one needs to be careful to never give a reasonable man justification to shoot you. What will a reasonable man think when he looks out the window and sees someone he does not know holding a gun having just killed his deceased dog? If he considers his dog as an integral part of his home security plan, he may well reasonably view the person who just shot his dog as an armed criminal attacker intent on attacking his home. How will a jury in your state treat a homeowner who interprets the situation this way and shoots someone (in apparent defense of his home) who just killed his dog on his own property?

Michael Courtney
 
I have refrained from commenting in all the dog threads recently, which has been hard considering all the stupid and assanine comments from various people. But, I will comment here.

While the law varies from state to state, you do have to take into consideration a number of things.

First, in any shooting will be the criminal charges (which won't always be brought up in a self defense situation) and also the civil charges.

In your situation, you would likely be cleared of criminal wrong doing provided that you were not trespassing on their property. But, in a civil court, you would most likely pay damages IF you shot the dogs while the dogs were still on the owners property.

So, if they are running loose (they have to be off of the owner's property for this term to apply), then shoot away with little fear so long as you are acting reasonably. But be very careful about shooting any dogs that are on "their" property unless you are truly truly in fear for your life and have no other options... because you will most likely pay for it.

And be careful when walking down the street. A dog that is "charging you" could be tethered and you just miss the chain in the action. You would be criminally responsible most of the time in that situation provided that the chain stops the dog short of public property.

Anyways, there is my 17 cents (I've been in the position several times and have too much experience with both sides of this issue).

Semper Fidelis,

Kent
 
Thank you for the great replys. Those are the thoughts that have been swirling around in my mind since this happened. I debated calling the police and complaining about the dogs...but I didn't. I am really ticked off that the dog's owners allow them to do that. I talked to a guy I know who walks by there every day, and he confirmed that the dogs chase him every time....stopping just short of the sidewalk. The owner never comes out to call them off. In my mind this is assault...no different than the owner running at me with an ax in hand and then suddenly stopping at arms length. I might just call the local PD and make them aware of the problem. Who knows, they might already have numerous complaints agains them. For now I'll take a different route. Thanks again.
 
deanf said:
Are you a reasonable man? Then the above is all you need.
Click to expand...

WRONG ANSWER! Think about it for a second. There was an invisible fence. If you had killed them it would have placed you on private property. You would have been killing a proper owner's dogs on his property. He'd have been in his rights to shoot you dead on the spot. I would have done it in a heartbeat. If some yahoo is slashing at my dogs on my property and the dogs are inside their invisible fence, it means the yahoo has ignored the property line and decided to come towards my house and start attacking my dogs. There's only one rational conclusion--he's coming after ME next. Otherwise he could have simply walked away.

WHERE the dog attacks is critically important. If the blood is on someone else's property and you're trespassing you're at fault--period. You're a criminal and the dog is doing exactly what it's supposed to do.

You probably would have had to wait until the dogs left "their" yard though to make it legal.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Esp. if you're using a blade. I'm not sure why "their" yard is in quotes, though. Front lawns are 100% private property. It always amazes me how many idiots don't seem to realize this.
 
a while back an off duty cop shot dead a local man's dog for fear of his children as the dog rounded the corner and was supposedly threatening, that aspect was disputed, but I doubt anything came of it. should have been on a leash anyways... I always have my pup on a leash just for the sheer fact I am afraid he might get hit by a car, not cause he is vicious.
 
"their" property as in the "dogs" property.

I put it there because obviously the dogs don't legally own the property, but they see it as "theirs".

Kent
 
his only means to defend himself is a blade and the dogs rushed him in a threatening manner. Is he supposed to magicly know that the dogs will stop and just snarl at him from the boarder of the property?

If putting himself between the dogs, which he had every reason to believe would attack, and his children ment he stepped foot on the property I doubt any jurry would convict him.

If you were rushing at my children like a madman making a damn good show that you were going to attack my children I have to wait for you to cross your property line to put myself between you and them even if that means I have to put a foot on your property?

Oh right, there is an invisible boundry that I am supposed to magicly know about. Just like if you point a gun at me I am supposed to magicly know it was unloaded?

Criminaly you would be fine more then likly invisible fence or not. Civily you might be screwed.
 
Think about it. The only way he could attack the dogs in that case would be if HE WENT ONTO THE PROPERTY. That's literally crossing the line. If you shoot the dog from the sidewalk because you thought it was about to attack you on the public road, there's room for doubt. But going onto the property and hacking at the dog? No way.

I think everyone knows that front yards are private property. They just ignore the rules. Now if nobody gets hurt because you trespass, nothing is done. But if you go onto another man's property and attack his dogs you're looking at both criminal and civil charges. I've never heard of launching out against a dog with a blade as a reasonable or rational response to a dog charging you. I don't think the cops or the DA would buy it for a second. The blood, you and the dogs are all on HIS property. That's not good. If the dog and the blood are on the sidewalk or street--you're golden. Private property is not a technicality in this case. It's extremely important. It's the difference between stopping a wild dog on the loose and killing a man's dog on his own property. Like I said if I ever saw a person on my land slashing at my dog, I'd blow his face through the back of his head. I have to assume such a man is kiling my dog to come and kill me. There's no other rational reason for attacking my dog on my land.
 
I was curious to know if you were walking in your neighborhood
or somewhere else
One would think if in your neighborhood you would know the area and what kind of dogs are there. Depending on how long you lived in the area could come into play. If somewhere else you are gotta do what you think is right to protect your kids.
 
ok so if he is charging my kids like a linebacker, can't do anything till he is on the sidewalk or street when it is already to late? How bout if he has an axe or a club? Oh it's different if I shoot from a public street? Funny cause last I checked I couldn't throw rocks at a house from a public street, in fact there was no different between doing it from the street or the property.

No one is talking about running onto the porch to fillet the dogs. We are talking about putting you between two charging snarling dogs and your kids.
 
Cosmoline said:
He'd have been in his rights to shoot you dead on the spot. I would have done it in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

This is one of the more choice comments I've heard in a while... :rolleyes:

Just try to pass that one off to the jury, "That summabitch kilt my dogs 'cuz they were a-growlin' at his little girl, so I done plugged 'im!!!" Yeah, I'm sure that you'd get a justified homicide decision on that one... :rolleyes:

If some yahoo is slashing at my dogs on my property and the dogs are inside their invisible fence, it means the yahoo has ignored the property line and decided to come towards my house and start attacking my dogs. There's only one rational conclusion--he's coming after ME next. Otherwise he could have simply walked away.

WHERE the dog attacks is critically important. If the blood is on someone else's property and you're trespassing you're at fault--period. You're a criminal and the dog is doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Except that he was walking on the sidewalk. There is no way to know that the dog is barred by an invisible fence. As he stated, the dogs stopped short of attacking him because of the invisible fence, so he didn't act with his large folder. He exercised the restrained that he should have, but if the fence had not been there, and the dogs came onto the sidewalk, he would have been more than justified to kill the dogs.

You are right that front yards are 100% private property, but the second that dog crosses onto the sidewalk it is fair game to anybody who fears for their life because of your negligence for not locking the damn creature up, and you are likely to be liable for any medical expenses incurred because of the attack.

The man said he was walking on the sidewalk with his daughter, not taking a stroll through the dogs' backyard turf. And private property or not, even if he was taking a stroll across your front yard, no jury in the U.S. is going to acquit you for killing a man who warded off an attack from some mangy mutt on your property. Now trying to get into your house is a completely different story... ;)
 
tetchaje1 said:
This is one of the more choice comments I've heard in a while... :rolleyes:

Just try to pass that one off to the jury, "That summabitch kilt my dogs 'cuz they were a-growlin' at his little girl, so I done plugged 'im!!!" Yeah, I'm sure that you'd get a justified homicide decision on that one... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
LOL.... Even saying that the hounds were "like family" wouldn't sway any jury that isn't populated with a majority of ASPCA members.
The man said he was walking on the sidewalk with his daughter, not taking a stroll through the dogs' backyard turf. And private property or not, even if he was taking a stroll across your front yard, no jury in the U.S. is going to acquit you for killing a man who warded off an attack from some mangy mutt on your property. Now trying to get into your house is a completely different story... ;)
Click to expand...

Good words. If I was in the situation and alone, I could run away, which would probably incite the dog's instinct to chase, and see if they followed or if I was protected by "invisible fences". But with a child to guard the first thing to do is to put your body between the dogs and the child, even if it puts you in the front yard.

If Mike kills Doug because Doug killed Mike's dogs in self-defense, I'd like to be on the jury for Mike's trial.
 
I was on the sidewalk and never would have left it...voluntarily anyway.
Let's not get too exited here guys. The other dog threads got closed as a result of too much emotion. This was in my neighborhood, but I don't usually walk this far, or take this route. I understand that people have a right to defend their property and that they may love their dogs dearly. But I would not hesitate to use lethal force against one that is attacking my kids while they are on a Public Sidewalk...or anywhere else for that matter. A human has a right to defend their property as well...but they cannot make a habit of chasing people with an ax or chainsaw who are simply walking by the house on a public sidewalk. And not to be a Smart***, but if I had shot the dogs, my focus would have immediately gone to the house (and owner) as we backed away. The owner was on my short list anyway...it's a good thing he had the dogs between him and me.
 
Lupinus said:
could not have said it better myself tet...so I wont even try lol
Click to expand...

You know. I grew up with dogs in my family my entire life. They were loved and treated with care as though they were members of the family.

However, we never crossed the line into believing that they had more worth than a human being. They are pets. To feel justified in killing another human being because he felt threatened by your dog, whether or your property or not, is just plain insane.

If he was in the wrong, sue him and make him replace your dog with another one, but I'll be damned if I am going to acquit a homeowner for wrongful death if I am on a jury and a case like Cosmoline's comes up... :scrutiny:
 
I know what you mean I grew up with dogs too, one of my grandfathers snarled at a kid and that was the end of that dog. Dogs are wonderful additions to a family so long as they are dangerous and your property or not if it is a danger to me or my kids it will be delt with I don't care it involves me going a foot onto your property or not.

Go ahead and shoot see how long you spend a free man. Maybe while you are at it the kids should be shot to incase they are coming for you next too :rolleyes:
 
and the dogs came onto the sidewalk, he would have been more than justified to kill the dogs.
Click to expand...

Yes, IF THEY CAME ONTO THE SIDEWALK. That's the difference. He has no right to go onto the property because he gets scared of the dogs.
 
Lupinus said:
I don't care it involves me going a foot onto your property or not.
Click to expand...

So in order to "protect your kids" you would trespass and attack dogs with a knife because they scare you :D It's not just illegal, it's nutty from a tactical point of view. If the dogs are really serious about an attack, you're going to get mauled and a blade won't do diddly. If they're not serious they'll run off and you'll be chasing dogs around with a blade on another man's lawn. Think about it for a second.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Dog Self-Defense
2 3
Replies
60
Views
4K
Art Eatman
A
T
  • Locked
Vicious dog @ large
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
TallPine
T
S
  • Locked
Concealed Carry Question.
Replies
18
Views
777
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
Legal question about SD and a dog
Replies
2
Views
615
Jim March
J
B
  • Locked
Soldier rescues child (Drill sergeant attacked by dog)
Replies
16
Views
926
migoi
M
Back
Top